Jump to content


Photo

Rebooting My Memory..


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
11 replies to this topic

#1 The Debatinator

The Debatinator

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 198 posts
  • Age: 20
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Chicago, Illinois

Posted 19 January 2006 - 03:49 PM

Being out of the creation/evolution scene and being incredibly rusty I want to know if people think that the horse+donkey/mule= hinney equasion is an exaple of a new species being made since the hinney cannot mate with a horse or donkey. As my sig implies I am going to give just basic talk for a bit.

#2 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 19 January 2006 - 07:43 PM

Being out of the creation/evolution scene and being incredibly rusty I want to know if people think that the horse+donkey/mule= hinney equasion is an exaple of a new species being made since the hinney cannot mate with a horse or donkey.  As my sig implies I am going to give just basic talk for a bit.

View Post


The process of creating a ‘mule’ is called Hybridisation (More common in plants than animals), not all hybridisation events produce a sterile result. It is one of the mechanisms of evolution for sure.

#3 lionheart209

lionheart209

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 107 posts
  • Age: 32
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Lodi, Ca

Posted 20 January 2006 - 08:01 PM

Being out of the creation/evolution scene and being incredibly rusty I want to know if people think that the horse+donkey/mule= hinney equasion is an exaple of a new species being made since the hinney cannot mate with a horse or donkey.  As my sig implies I am going to give just basic talk for a bit.

View Post



The Hinny is the result of breeding a
female donkey / burro (jenny or jennet)
to a male horse (stallion or stud).

It's still part of the horse KIND/family, that's obvious.
To be a new species it would have had to been born as a lion or wolf, but new species are never created/breed by a differing species/KIND.





Louie Buren <><

#4 lwj2op2

lwj2op2

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 292 posts
  • Location:Ridgecrest, California
  • Interests:God, Family, Country, friends.<br />Apologetics, though not well versed.<br />Health, running, bike riding, outdoors.<br />Divorced (by my wife) father of four-23s, 20d, 18s &amp; 13s.<br />Remarried 2 more kiddos 6d, 4s<br />River Boat Captain about 16 years on the Colorado.<br />Power Plant operator at a Geothermal site, just past 5 years.
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Ridgecrest, California

Posted 21 January 2006 - 05:39 PM

The process of creating a ‘mule’ is called Hybridisation (More common in plants than animals), not all hybridisation events produce a sterile result.  It is one of the mechanisms of evolution for sure.

View Post

Is there any evidence of a natural occurance?

#5 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 22 January 2006 - 06:49 PM

Is there any evidence of a natural occurance?

View Post


I googled lots under "natural Hybridization", e.g. fish

from the link

Hybridization between Fish Species in Nature
CL Hubbs Systematic Zoology (1955) 4 1-20

In an old, but very comprehensive paper Hubbs documents over 130 instances of interspecies hybridisations in fish species in nature.



#6 lwj2op2

lwj2op2

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 292 posts
  • Location:Ridgecrest, California
  • Interests:God, Family, Country, friends.<br />Apologetics, though not well versed.<br />Health, running, bike riding, outdoors.<br />Divorced (by my wife) father of four-23s, 20d, 18s &amp; 13s.<br />Remarried 2 more kiddos 6d, 4s<br />River Boat Captain about 16 years on the Colorado.<br />Power Plant operator at a Geothermal site, just past 5 years.
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Ridgecrest, California

Posted 23 January 2006 - 04:08 PM

I googled lots under "natural Hybridization", e.g. fish

from the link

View Post


OK, I googled and checked through about ten of the sites. There is much evidence of interspeice hybridization. I did not find any where a new specie (Iris + watermellon = irilon?) was formed. Seems this would be necessary for hybridization to assist evolution.

#7 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 23 January 2006 - 06:53 PM

OK, I googled and checked through about ten of the sites. There is much evidence of interspeice hybridization. I did not find any where a new specie (Iris + watermellon = irilon?) was formed. Seems this would be necessary for hybridization to assist evolution.


google “new species hybridisation” a typical selection is:LINK.

From the article

A newfound insect shows that two species can combine to create a third species, and that humans may be unknowingly encouraging evolution, according to researchers.

Most new animal species are believed to arise when a single species splits into two. But new animals can also be created when two species come together to create a single new species, the researchers say.

This two-become-one evolutionary process, common among plants, has long been considered extremely rare and unimportant among animals. The new study, based on a fly species found in the northeastern United States, suggests otherwise.

The Lonicera fly evolved as a hybrid of two existing U.S. species, the blueberry maggot and the snowberry maggot, according to the study. The newfound species is named after the honeysuckle plant (scientific name: Lonicera), which the insect's life cycle revolves around.

Humans may have indirectly "caused" the new species by introducing an Asian honeysuckle species to North America.

The fly began as a hybrid. A hybrid is a type of animal that is created from the mating of two other species. Mules, for example, are donkey-horse hybrids, but they can't breed with each other. Hybrids that aren't sterile may have the opportunity to become a full-blown new species. For this to happen, the hybrid requires a distinct niche where it can evolve separately from its two parent species. For the Lonicera fly, the alien honeysuckle plant provided that niche.



#8 lwj2op2

lwj2op2

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 292 posts
  • Location:Ridgecrest, California
  • Interests:God, Family, Country, friends.<br />Apologetics, though not well versed.<br />Health, running, bike riding, outdoors.<br />Divorced (by my wife) father of four-23s, 20d, 18s &amp; 13s.<br />Remarried 2 more kiddos 6d, 4s<br />River Boat Captain about 16 years on the Colorado.<br />Power Plant operator at a Geothermal site, just past 5 years.
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Ridgecrest, California

Posted 24 January 2006 - 01:01 PM

google “new species hybridisation” a typical selection is:LINK.

From the article

View Post



the blueberry maggot and the snowberry maggot, etc.
I looked but there were no new species. Only variations on a theme. Maybe I am not using the correct term, but a fly is a fly is a fly.

#9 The Debatinator

The Debatinator

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 198 posts
  • Age: 20
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Chicago, Illinois

Posted 25 January 2006 - 04:03 PM

On another forum the head-cheese threw a discussion grenade on speciation and hit me with one of those ginormous steryotypical talk-origins articles. Can you help me chow down on this? http://www.talkorigi...speciation.html

#10 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 26 January 2006 - 10:47 PM

On another forum the head-cheese threw a discussion grenade on speciation and hit me with one of those ginormous steryotypical talk-origins articles.  Can you help me chow down on this?  http://www.talkorigi...speciation.html

View Post


My first response to such a reply would be to remind him that discussions in forums are supported by links and are not the substance of the argument. If that’s all he posted as a reply it achieves nothing.

Request that he explain in his own words a concept, or at least include the relevant text from the link as a quote. There is really way too much information in that link for it to be considered a reply, additional reading or resource perhaps but not a reply.

#11 The Debatinator

The Debatinator

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 198 posts
  • Age: 20
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Chicago, Illinois

Posted 28 January 2006 - 10:18 AM

He takes this as an example of species separating.

"Three species of wildflowers called goatsbeards were introduced to the United States from Europe shortly after the turn of the century. Within a few decades their populations expanded and began to encounter one another in the American West. Whenever mixed populations occurred, the specied interbred (hybridizing) producing sterile hybrid offspring. Suddenly, in the late forties two new species of goatsbeard appeared near Pullman, Washington. Although the new species were similar in appearance to the hybrids, they produced fertile offspring. The evolutionary process had created a separate species that could reproduce but not mate with the goatsbeard plants from which it had evolved."

It still says goatsbeard (which may imply it still being the same thing and a poor example of evolution) but untill then I wonder... hrmm.. Is it a new kind if it can brack off like this? Or is this a baltant lie?

#12 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 29 January 2006 - 07:37 PM

He takes this as an example of species separating.

"Three species of wildflowers called goatsbeards were introduced to the United States from Europe shortly after the turn of the century. Within a few decades their populations expanded and began to encounter one another in the American West. Whenever mixed populations occurred, the specied interbred (hybridizing) producing sterile hybrid offspring. Suddenly, in the late forties two new species of goatsbeard appeared near Pullman, Washington. Although the new species were similar in appearance to the hybrids, they produced fertile offspring. The evolutionary process had created a separate species that could reproduce but not mate with the goatsbeard plants from which it had evolved."

It still says goatsbeard (which may imply it still being the same thing and a poor example of evolution) but untill then I wonder... hrmm.. Is it a new kind if it can brack off like this? Or is this a baltant lie?



The goatsbeard example is not a lie, the quote you posted is a word for word quote from talk origins, http://www.talkorigi...speciation.html
About a quarter of the way down.

That they call it goatsbeard is not really a problem, it’s like calling lions and tigers, felines, it’s only a name. The important thing is that the new hybrid can not mate with its originals, it’s now on it’s own. The reason hybridisation is more common in plants than animals is wholly due to the type of s@x they have, i.e. male and female in the one flower, so in the absence of a mate this hybrid can increase it’s population. After a few plants are established it will begin to mate with others of it’s own species, and more variation will result.

In the animal world fish can hybridise due to the external fertilisation process, but if the resulting offspring are too different it will likely not find a mate. In the mammalian, reptilian, world, hybridisation is all but eliminated due to the internal fertilisation method required.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users